United States v. Freddy Alexander
Docket: 12-1084
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; March 11, 2013; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Freddy S. Alexander pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). During sentencing, the court applied a six-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(c) due to Alexander assaulting a police officer, which the judge found created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury. The calculated guideline range was 108 to 135 months, and the judge imposed a sentence of 108 months. Alexander appealed, contesting the application of the upward adjustment. The incident occurred when Alexander disembarked an Amtrak train in Springfield, where police officers awaited him. He initially complied with a search but then punched Lieutenant Steil, striking him and causing a struggle. Despite minor injuries to Lt. Steil, a probation officer concluded that Alexander's actions posed a substantial risk of serious injury and recommended the adjustment. Alexander argued against this, asserting that his punches did not seriously threaten harm. The district court overruled his objection, clarifying that the guideline's application does not require actual serious injury, only a substantial risk thereof. The court referenced a precedent where similar circumstances warranted an adjustment even without the use of a weapon. The court emphasized its primary responsibility in evaluating such risks, stating it would overturn the adjustment only upon finding clear error. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision. The Sentencing Guidelines define 'serious bodily injury' as involving extreme physical pain, protracted impairment of bodily functions, or requiring medical intervention such as surgery or hospitalization. Alexander argues that the judge should not have relied on the case of Irving because he did not bite the officer and claims the risk from his punch was minimal. However, Irving does not set a precedent for the application of guideline 3A1.2(c). Appellate courts are generally ill-suited to reassess a sentencing court's evaluation of the victim's injury or risk factors. Alexander's argument could be stronger if he had thrown just one punch and then ceased, as indicated in a state case where a single punch did not demonstrate intent for serious bodily harm. However, he threw two punches at Lt. Steil’s head, suggesting a greater intent to inflict harm. Even one blow can pose a significant risk of serious injury under the Guidelines. The standard for applying these guidelines is the district judge's responsibility. The court found no clear error in applying the upward adjustment for Alexander, given the context of his actions. Several precedents support this conclusion, where similar violent actions resulted in affirmations of guideline applications. The judgment is thus affirmed.